Date of Filing: 11.11.2014 Date of Final Order: 18.12.2015
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the O.P. No.2 & 3 invited a Tender Notice No.2/Vehicle of 2013-14 for sale of confiscated vehicle in public auction on 11/11/2012, Memo No.4180/15 and the copy also forwarded to the O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Cooch Behar.
It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant purchased the confiscated Maruti Omni Van bearing Registration No.WB-64-B/5415, Chassis No. MA3VB-11500717108, Engine No. F8BIN2965239 amounting to Rs.55,020/- from the said auction sale. After compliance of all official formalities of the O.P. No.2,3 & 4, the O.P. No.4, The Divisional Forest Officer, Jaldapara Wild Life Division, Cooch Behar handed over the aforesaid vehicle to the Complainant on 26/12/2013. The O.P. No.4 sent a letter Memo No.702/5-206 dated 03/03/2014 to the O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar to change the ownership of aforesaid Maruti Omni Van in favour of the Complainant, Subhajit Dey Chaudhuri. After that so many correspondences were made by the Complainant with the O.P. No.1 for changing the ownership in the name of the Complainant but the O.P. No.1 did not do anything and from the date of purchase the said vehicle did not ply without registration in favour of the Complainant.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffering from mental pain & agony, financial loss and damage the vehicle also there is deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence adopting by the O.Ps.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.55,020/- for refund the purchase value of the said vehicle, (ii) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, (iii) Rs.50,000/- as pecuniary loss for damage the said vehicle, travelling Exp. And Misc. Exp. and (iv) Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P is that as per record of the office of the RTA, Cooch Behar the vehicle in question is subject to hypothecation with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Ltd., Cooch Behar. But the Complainant did not make any averment with respect to same through he knows that Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Ltd., Cooch Behar related with the matter in question.
The O.P. No.1 further contended that the O.P No.3 has issued a letter to the Range Officer for handed over of the vehicle but no documentary evidence regarding handed over of the vehicle to the Complainant has been submitted to this O.P at the time of his application for transfer of ownership.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that the Complainant did not file any document regarding auction sale. The Complainant requested to the O.P. No.1 through others O.P to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle but the Complainant claimed to be the owner of the said vehicle from 26/12/2013.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that the Complainant submitted his application for transfer of ownership on 14/07/2014 where as he claim to have applied on 26/12/2013. The O.P. No.1 also stated in their W/V that as per record as the vehicle in question is under hypothecation with Mahindra Finance Ltd. as per the vehicle particulars and as per the M.V Act, 1988 Section 51 Sub-section 4 transfer of ownership cannot be done for any vehicle under hypothecation, but the Complainant knowing the said fact did not take any proper initiative rather he suppressed the said facts at the office of the RTA, Cooch Behar. Therefore there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1.
By putting all these, the O.P. No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case with compensatory costs.
The O.P. No.2, 3 & 4, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The O.P. No.2 to 4 are denied all the allegation of the complaint filed by the Complainant.
Ultimately, this answering O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with compensatory costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record. Perused the evidence on affidavit of both parties and W/Ar. also heard the argument by the parties.
Point No.1.
It is the case of the O.Ps that the Complainant is not consumer under them. Evidently, on payment of Rs.55,020/- the Complainant has purchased the vehicle No. WB-64-B/5415 at the time of auction sale from the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4, Forest Dept. and Forest Dept. handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the Complainant.
We further fund that the Complainant has applied to the O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar for changing ownership of the vehicle in question on payment of proper fees and the O.P. No.1 rejected the prayer on the ground that the vehicle in question was under hypothecation with Mahindra Finance Ltd.
So, in view of the above made discussion it can be safely said that the Complainant is Consumer U/S 2(i)d(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986, as he purchased the vehicle in question on payment of price from the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 and applied to the O.P. No.1 on payment of requisite fees.
Point No.2.
We find that barring the O.P. No.2, other O.Ps viz the O.P. No.1, 3 & 4 have office within jurisdiction of this Forum.
We further find that total valuation of this case is Rs.1,60,020/- which is far less than Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. maximum pecuniary limit of the Forum.
So, this Forum has pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.
We find that the Complainant, Subhajit Dey Chaudhuri in his complaint and evidence stated that he purchased the confiscated Maruti Omni Van bearing Registration No. WB-64-B/5415, Chassis No. MA3VB-11500717108, Engine No. F8BIN2965239 amounting to Rs.55,020/- from the auction sale. After compliance of all official formalities of the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4, the O.P. No.4, The Divisional Forest Officer, Jaldapara Wild Life Division, Cooch Behar handed over the aforesaid vehicle to the Complainant on 26/12/2013.
“Annexure-A” copy of Tender Notice No.2/Vehicle of 2013 – 14, “Annexure-B” copy of Receipt for payment dated 26/12/2013 and “Annexure-C” copy of the letter dated 26/12/2013 sent by Divisional Forest Officer, Cooch Behar to the Range Office, Jaldapara East Range show that the Complainant has purchased Maruti Omni Van being No. WB-64-B/5415 on payment of Rs.55,020/- as auction purchaser and on 26/12/2013 the Range Officer was directed by the Divisional Forest Officer to hand over possession of the said vehicle to the Complainant.
It is the case of the Complainant that the O.P. No.4 by sending Memo No. 702/5-206 dated 03/03/2014 to the O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar to change the ownership of the vehicle in question in favour of the Complainant.
“Annexure-D” copy of the letter dated 03/03/2014 shows that Divisional Forest Officer requested to the R.T.A to change the ownership of the said vehicle in question.
It is the further case of the Complainant inspite of so many correspondence, the O.P. No.1, R.T.A did not change the ownership of the said vehicle in question in his name and the said vehicle did not ply without registration.
On the other hand it is the case of the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 that admittedly, the Complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from them at auction sale on payment of auction price of Rs.55,020/- and they also requested the O.P. No.1, R.T.A to change the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant.
So, there was no latches or fault or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4.
We find that in his written complaint, the Complainant clearly admitted that the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 have complied their all formalities and the O.P. No.4 delivered possession of the vehicle in question to the Complainant.
From Annexure “D” i.e. letter dated 03.03.2014 also shows that O.P. No.4, Divisional Forest Officer requested the O.P. No.1, RTA to change the name of the Complainant as owner of the vehicle, in question.
So, in view of above made discussion, it is clear that the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 have performed their all formalities and duties and they are not liable for any deficiency in service in any way.
During hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate/Agent of the Complainant submitted a ruling reported in 2013 CJ 898(NC) where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that it is not job of Auction purchaser to correspond directly with Registering Authority and request for requisite papers.
We think said ruling is not applicable in this case as this is not a case of non-availability of requisite papers and the Forest Department has already sent a letter requesting the RTA to change the ownership of the vehicle.
Regarding O.P. No.1, RTA, we find that it is the main contention of the O.P. No.1 that the vehicle, in question, was under hypothecation with Mahindra Finance Ltd. and as per Section 51 (4) MV Act, ownership of the vehicle cannot be changed.
Certainly in view of Section 51 (4) M.V. Act, ownership of vehicle under hire/hypothecation purchase agreement cannot be transferred.
But during hearing of argument, Ld. Agent/Advocate of the Complainant submitted a ruling reported in AIR 2015 Orissa 82 where in a case of transfer of ownership of vehicle, which was purchased by way of Auction sale, RTA rejected the prayer on the ground of non-payment of tax. Hon’ble High Court pleased to hold that Auction purchaser having purchased vehicle free from all encumbrance.
Hon’ble Court also pleased to hold that when order of confiscation u/s 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 was passed, which became final order that Section, it shall vest with State Government free from all encumbrances.
He submitted another ruling reported in AIR 1996 Mad 334 where Hon’ble High Court pleased to hold that “in instant case, the vehicle, in question, was seized and confiscated by the second respondent for the offences committed under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act under Section 49-A(2) and thereafter it was sold in a public auction under Section 49-A(3) of the Act and as per Section 49-F of the Act, if such property or portion thereof has been sold under Section 49-A(3) and the sale proceeds shall vest in Government free from all encumbrances and hence, I am of the considered view that the auction-purchaser purchased the vehicle free from all encumbrances”.
So, in view of our above made discussion and relying upon the ruling cited above, it can be safely said that the Complainant has purchased the vehicle, in question, in Auction Sale free from all encumbrance and O.P. No.1, RTA should not refuse to register the vehicle, in question, in the name of the Complainant on the ground of hypothecation of vehicle under Mahindra Finance Ltd.
Lastly, in his argument, Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.P. No.1, RTA submitted that order passed by the RTA is Appealable order and the Complainant should have preferred Appeal against the said order and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.
But there is nothing to show that jurisdiction of this Forum has been curtailed by any provision of M.V. Act or any other Act.
Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record, we constrained to hold that the O.P. No.1, R.T.A illegally refused to change ownership of the vehicle in question and there by caused deficiency in service.
Evidently, since auction sale the vehicle in question did not ply due to said non-transfer of ownership and is lying in useless condition.
So, the Complainant sustained pecuniary loss for the said vehicle.
Accordingly, we think Rs.60,000/- is to be awarded against the O.P. No.1 as compensation for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment and pecuniary loss of the Complainant.
However, the Complainant is not entitled to get refund of Rs.55,020/- as purchase value of the vehicle in question, as the same is lying in his possession.
Thus, these points are decided in favour of the Complainant in part.
So, the case succeeds but in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The Case No. DF - 54/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar and dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 without any costs. The O.P. No.1, Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar is hereby directed to pay Rs.60,000/- to the Complainant, Subhajit Dey Chaudhuri as compensation for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment and pecuniary loss of the Complainant.
The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant by the O.P. No.1 within 45 days failure of which the O.P. No.1 shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
